Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Transcendental Meditation 2: Declined as 1) mathematically impossible and 2) ten days after request made with more decline votes than accept
Line 3: Line 3:
<br clear="all"/>
<br clear="all"/>
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header}}
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header}}

==Transcendental Meditation 2 ==
'''Initiated by ''' <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — [[User:Keithbob|<b style= "color:#090;"><i>Keithbob</i></b>]] • [[User_ talk:Keithbob|<span style="color:#075;">Talk</span>]] • </span> '''at''' 03:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator -->
*{{userlinks|Keithbob}}, ''filing party''
*{{userlinks|Littleolive oil}}
*{{userlinks|Bigweeboy}}
*{{userlinks|Jmh649}}
*{{userlinks|Will Beback}}
*{{userlinks|Edith Sirius Lee}}
*{{userlinks|TimidGuy}}
<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. -->

;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Littleolive_oil&diff=prev&oldid=386042352 Littleolive oil]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bigweeboy&diff=prev&oldid=386042473 Bigweeboy]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jmh649&diff=prev&oldid=386042926 Jmh649]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Will_Beback&diff=prev&oldid=386042782 Will Beback]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Edith_Sirius_Lee&diff=prev&oldid=386043319 Edith Sirius Lee]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATimidGuy&action=historysubmit&diff=386113338&oldid=384459780 TimidGuy]

;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
<!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration -->
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Transcendental_Meditation_2 Mediation Request 1]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Transcendental_Meditation_3#Decision_of_the_Mediation_Committee Mediation Request 2]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transcendental_Meditation/Archive_33#RfC:_How_to_best_summarize_the_scientific_literature_on_TM RfC 1]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transcendental_Meditation#RFC:_Lead_sentence RfC 2]

=== Statement by [[User:Keithbob]] ===

Request for “periodic review” of editor conduct as stated in the TM Arb decision. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement/Proposed_decision#Periodic_review_by_ArbCom] The complex nature of the behavioral issues and topic requires that matters be addressed by the Committee, rather than additional community forums.

I have attempted to minimize my involvement in controversies and have generally stayed away from [[Transcendental Meditation]]. Since the close of TMM-ArbCom I have made only 12 edits to [[Transcendental Meditation]] (compared to 115 by Littleoliveoil and 95 by WillBeback) [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&page=Transcendental_Meditation&since=2010-06-05&until=2010-09-19&grouped=on&order=-edit_count&max=100&order=-edit_count&format=html] and only 27 Talk Page edits (compared to 330 by Will Beback) [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&page=Talk%3ATranscendental_Meditation&since=2010-06-05&until=2010-09-19&grouped=on&order=-edit_count&max=100&order=-edit_count&format=html]

However, I have observed sudden and disturbing changes in [[Transcendental Meditation]] and protracted controversies on the Talk Page as well as patterns of disruptive behavior. Such as this sweeping change on September 2nd [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transcendental_Meditation&diff=next&oldid=382207243] made to the article by Jmh649, without consensus or agreement, during the second day of an RfC, which started on September 1st.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transcendental_Meditation&diff=382363953&oldid=382320327]

ArbCom review is needed:
*Protracted disputes on [[Transcendental Meditation]], its RfC's and mediations. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Transcendental_Meditation_2][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Transcendental_Meditation_3#Decision_of_the_Mediation_Committee][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transcendental_Meditation/Archive_33#RfC:_How_to_best_summarize_the_scientific_literature_on_TM] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transcendental_Meditation#RFC:_Lead_sentence]
*Inappropriate AE case that was incorrect in both procedure and conclusion. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Statement:Littleolive_oil]
*Ongoing patterns of disruptive behavior by Jmh649 and WillBeback and a hostile editing environment on [[Transcendental Meditation]] and related articles.

*Expressing superiority, ownership and the pushing of incorrect interpretations of policies and guidelines
**“Wikipedia should be written by people independent of the subject at hand (see [[WP:COI]] and by those who contribute broadly to the encyclopedia.” Jmh649 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=384527858&oldid=384515700]
**“I edit boldly and will continue.” Jmh649 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transcendental_Meditation&diff=prev&oldid=381345828]
**“If the community supports one version over another with the only people disagreeing with the changes being a group with ties either financially or personal to the topic at hand than yes we will go with the version supported by the wider community. One does not need consensus of all editors involved.”Jmh649 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transcendental_Meditation&diff=next&oldid=376715431]
** “Yes the three of you agree but you also all practice TM. Now please get some outside input.” Jmh649 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transcendental_Meditation&diff=next&oldid=377506447]

**“There are millions of other articles on Wikipedia - it's not necessary for you to edit the MUM article.” WillBeback [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TimidGuy&diff=373607840&oldid=373034392]
**“I see you haven't edited the article in a long time, which is appropriate.” WillBeback[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TimidGuy&diff=373608880&oldid=373607840]
**“Given the ArbCom case, MUM faculty and other highly involved members of the TM movement need to pay close attention to the policies, especially when there's an issue of adding or keeping positive material, or deleting or arguing against negative material.” WillBeback [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TimidGuy&diff=373613979&oldid=373610947]

*‘Proposed Enforcement’ at TMM-ArbCom1 decision states appeals of AE blocks may be made to ArbCom. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement/Proposed_decision#Proposed_enforcement] Littleoliveoil's objection [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise&diff=378049944&oldid=378046097] and TimidGuy's appeal [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise&diff=384001677&oldid=383935155] to imposing administrator's UserPage and the Arbitration Request for Clarification filed by Littleoliveoil indicating that the AE did not follow TMM-ArbCom enforcement procedures [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification&oldid=385724109#Request_for_clarification:_Transcendental_Meditation_movement_Arbitration_and_Enforcement] do not preclude examination by the Committee. EdithSiriusLee's appeal to the imposing administrator [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise&diff=378421800&oldid=378388097] and at AE [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=384456498#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Edith_Sirius_Lee] also do not preclude editors, who were imporoperly sanctioned as a group, from their right to Committee review.
*TM noticeboards I initiated [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=360753866][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=375069716][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Request_board&diff=prev&oldid=378518362][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Architecture&diff=prev&oldid=379214394]When the case opens I will provide diffs to demonstrate Will Beback's TM-ArbCom violations.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — [[User:Keithbob|<b style= "color:#090;"><i>Keithbob</i></b>]] • [[User_ talk:Keithbob|<span style="color:#075;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 21:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by [[User:Jmh649]] ===

This has been discussed recently a number of times. Here by LittleOlive [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification&oldid=385724109] and here by Edith [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=385918949#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Edith_Sirius_Lee]. The first was closed as being the wrong forum. The second was denied with discussion taking place here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wgfinley&oldid=386017528#Per_your_closing_of_the_AE_appeal_on_User:Edith_Sirius_Lee].

BTW only 6 edits have been made to [[Transcendental Meditation]] article in the last two weeks and 5 to the talk page ( all involving routine maintenance ). None of the last 50 edits have been a revert with edits from a number of the parties involved including KeithBob. I have not edited any article or talk page regarding TM for more than 500 edits.
[[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) 04:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by [[User:Bigweeboy]] ===
FURTHER COMMENT:
In the recent AE case, three editors were sanctioned in a rush to judgment ruling, where it seemed “due process” was ignored. Eg: Jmh649 completed the AE filing at 6:41 on August 9, adding the list of alleged warnings given prior to the AE case. 90 minutes later, the imposing administrator, Future Perfect ruled on the case, despite posts from accused editors asking for time to post a statement. There was no opportunity for editors to state their case prior to judgment.

On August 10, Future Perfect posted three times on the TM talk page supporting the positions of Jmh649 and Will Beback, thereby creating an intense atmosphere of intimidation. I felt that if I did not back away I could be taken to AE on trumped up charges and sanctioned by Future Perfect in a kangaroo court.

Will and Jmh649 seem to be working in an aggressive and coordinated manner to make major changes to TM article without collaboration or consensus, to create ownership. Jmh649 created a fork article on the second day of an RfC, without debate or consensus. Will Beback then proceeded to change the lead section of many of the TM related articles to solidify Jmh649’s non-consensus changes. When I attempted to edit the leads (e.g. Maharishi article), I was pushed aside by Will. After debate on talk pages and reverted edits, I gave up editing, feeling bullied by Will. I have not made major edits to the TM article since September 8. It is my experience that Will often disregards input from editors and attempts to distract and belittle them, until he has his own way. He strives to create the impression that he is the final authority on the TM articles and their content.

It is blatantly obvious that AE is not a safe or just forum for TM Arbitration enforcement given the recent treatment of editors, and it is important that this arbitration be reopened to deal with the current atmosphere of hostility and intimidation. Due to family and work commitments, I did not have the time to do diff research in the past few days, but once the case opens I can and will provide diffs to support the assertions that I have made here. --[[User:Bigweeboy|BwB]] ([[User talk:Bigweeboy|talk]]) 14:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

MORE<br>
As Olive has so clearly states, this request is not about “disliking the outcome”. I concur that AE was a sham and went against the TM ArbCom findings. I urge you all to look at the AE case in detail. Thanks. --[[User:Bigweeboy|BwB]] ([[User talk:Bigweeboy|talk]]) 08:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
:@Willbeback - You mischaracterize the state of the TM articles as "stable" as if everything is hunky-dorey with the articles. I would classify it as "stagnant" or "stale-mate", but not "stable". Doc and you made a land-grab for the TM article and I have not edited because I do not approve of the way the articles was forked, etc. --[[User:Bigweeboy|BwB]] ([[User talk:Bigweeboy|talk]]) 17:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by [[User:Littleolive oil|Olive]] ===
I’d like to request that the arbitration committee either accept this case, or reopen TM Arb 1. Key elements of TM Arb 1 have been misused, abused and/or misunderstood and need to be clarified, while all other dispute resolutions tried have failed.

*Misused Arbitration Enforcement: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&action=historysubmit&diff=377932004&oldid=377896042#User:TimidGuy_and_User:Littleolive_oil_and_Edith_Sirius_Lee]:

Remedies in the TM Arb 1 case don’t line up with key elements of the AE. There were no findings of COI/meat/sock puppetry in the original Arbitration, so the collective IRR restriction artificially and improperly groups editors. The process of warning before sanctioning was inappropriately used and per the Arbitration not followed. Diffs don’t show edit warring. There were no diff-supported violations reported in the AE.

I urge ArbCom to examine the AE report ([[User:Littleolive oil/ AE diffs|analysis of diffs here]]) and conclusions in detail. They are presented to make it appear that violations had occurred, but on closer examination of the actual evidence – there were no violations by the accused of WP:POLICY or TM ArbCom decisions whatsoever. The only violations were by those who reported the purported violations, and by those who implemented or agreed with the sanctions. They are the ones who violated the TM ArbCom decision that says editors should be properly warned and counseled prior to sanctions being administered. These warnings and counseling did not occur. And the evidence and presentation in the AE report is completey deceptive.

*AE appeal:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive69#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Edith_Sirius_Lee]
The admin focused on the sanction not the report. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=384800891#Result_of_the_appeal_by_Edith_Sirius_Lee]. But the report was inaccurate. If a report is flawed how can there even be sanctions? He seems to think there was a 1RR restriction per editor rather than a group 1RR restriction, and ignores one side of the so called edit war while focusing on the other. Not a neutral environment.
*AE clarification[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification]:
While text of the arbitration was clarified no arbitrators responded to the other concerns. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Arbitrator_views_and_discussion.]
Other dispute resolution processes were compromised:
*RfCs:

- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transcendental_Meditation/Archive_33#RfC:_How_to_best_summarize_the_scientific_literature_on_TM]:(Initiator Jmh649) filed and got sanctions in an AE(above) against the three editors who opposed him, based on inaccurate information.

- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transcendental_Meditation#RFC:_Lead_sentence]: (Initiator Will Beback):One day after the RfC opened Jmh649 created a fork - [[Transcendental Meditation technique]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transcendental_Meditation&diff=next&oldid=382207243] and continued to make extensive changes and mischaratcerize despite editor objections. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transcendental_Meditation&diff=prev&oldid=382534367] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transcendental_Meditation&diff=382568833&oldid=382566815] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transcendental_Meditation&diff=next&oldid=382568833] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transcendental_Meditation&diff=prev&oldid=382562413]. Will Beback mischaracterized the comments of other editors in support of the changes. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transcendental_Meditation&diff=next&oldid=382575340] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transcendental_Meditation&diff=next&oldid=382604164] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transcendental_Meditation&diff=next&oldid=382608466]

What the RfC was actually about:

''Transcendental Meditation" and "TM" are used by journalists and scholars to refer to both the meditation technique and the movement. Should the lead sentence of this article reflect both common usages? Will Beback talk 22:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
''
*Formal mediations [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Transcendental_Meditation_2][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Transcendental_Meditation_3#Decision_of_the_Mediation_Committee]:

Two formal mediation requests were preempted by the non consensus changes referred to in the Will Beback-initiated RfC above, that massively altered the [[Transcendental Meditation]], [[Transcendental Meditation movement]], and TM technique articles, so that text referred to in the requests was changed or moved, making the requests moot.

*Behavioural issues are ongoing such as misuse of an AE as shown above, massive unilateral POV changes that have “locked out” the so called TM editors as in the Will Beback initiated RfC, continued, personalized comments that imply COI despite the fact the original arbitration did not find COI. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transcendental_Meditation&diff=next&oldid=376715431][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transcendental_Meditation&diff=next&oldid=376743702], and Will Beback's misrepresentation and mischaracterization of editor comments.

I hope arbitration will understand the need to have this case accepted. The first AE since the TM Arb 1 was deeply flawed, possibly dishonest, and in effect trumped the arbitration. Other dipute resolution processes were tried but failed. Arbitration is all that's left. Unless the arbitration committee makes it clear that their findings remedies and decisions are to be taken seriously, editors can continue to run rings around Wikipedia’s DR processes. AEs that don’t follow the arbitration should be voided letting those who file and sanction know that the arbitrators and the arbitration process have teeth.([[User:Littleolive oil|olive]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 22:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC))

'''Comment:'''Thanks to the arbitrators who've commented for their consideration. It was Fladrif who characterized this request in terms of 'not liking' an AE. In fact this request goes way beyond an AE. 6 dispute resolution processes were tried. If DRs are compromised and overridden as they were for example when an editor unilaterally forks off content one day into an RfC, supported through mischaracterization by another editor, removes entire sections of content like the research on the TM technique creating a POV driven non- NPOV article, and renders mediations moot, then a “full case” is warranted. This additional evidence goes far beyond an AE concerning as it does the DRs, and the behavior of WBB and Doc James, among other issues. Since the AE did not deal fairly with the case against a group of editors, the logical and only next step is arbitration. This is not a content issue but is about editor behaviour and the failure of multiple dispute resolutions, a long ways past the scope of Informal mediation. How else does one appeal to ArbCom per the Arb Com decision [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement#Discretionary_sanctions]:([[User:Littleolive oil|olive]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 16:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC))

"Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed initially to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to the Administrators' noticeboard, or to Arbitration Enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee"

===Statement by [[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]]===
Keithbob has not made any personal efforts to resolve these conflicts. He hasn't started any RfCs, nor made any mediation requests, nor filed any AE complaints. While others have done so, he has not been a significant participant.

Keithbob does not name any specific policies or arbitration remedies that have been violated. Even if all of his evidence were true, his charges of "expressing superiority, ownership and the pushing of incorrect interpretations of policies and guidelines" are not grounds for re-opening the case or imposing new remedies. The talk page comments he cites are not uncivil and are not so wrong that any errors in interpretation require punishment. (Has anyone ever been punished for giving an incorrect interpretation of a guideline?)

Keithbob's evidence does not tell the whole story. He says that he has stepped back from the topic and gives a few figures to prove it. His figures are incomplete. There are several TM-related articles or talk pages to which he's been the greatest contributor in the past few months, including: [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&page=Maharishi_Mahesh_Yogi&since=2010-06-05&until=&grouped=on&order=-edit_count&max=100&order=-edit_count&format=html Maharishi_Mahesh_Yogi], [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&page=John_Hagelin&since=2010-06-05&until=&grouped=on&order=-edit_count&max=100&order=-edit_count&format=html John_Hagelin], [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&page=Transcendental_Meditation_technique&since=2010-06-05&until=&grouped=on&order=-edit_count&max=100&order=-edit_count&format=html Transcendental_Meditation_technique], [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&page=Maharishi_School_of_the_Age_of_Enlightenment&since=2010-06-05&until=&grouped=on&order=-edit_count&max=100&order=-edit_count&format=html Maharishi_School_of_the_Age_of_Enlightenment], and [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&page=Maharishi_University_of_Management&since=2010-06-05&until=&grouped=on&order=-edit_count&max=100&order=-edit_count&format=html Maharishi_University_of_Management]. There are at least several more in which the pro-TM editors, including Keithbob, have collectively made more edits than anyone else, such as [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&page=Maharishi_Sthapatya_Veda&since=2010-06-05&until=&grouped=on&order=-edit_count&max=100&order=-edit_count&format=html Maharishi_Sthapatya_Veda], and [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&page=Talk%3AMaharishi_Mahesh_Yogi&since=2010-06-05&until=&grouped=on&order=-edit_count&max=100&order=-edit_count&format=html Talk:Maharishi_Mahesh_Yogi]. However mere edit counts do not mean anything. When it comes to editing, I know that all of my edits have been within policy and Wikipedia's highest standards. Likewise, I do not see any policy violations by Jmh649. I cannot say the same for Keithbob's.

I have encountered a number of occasions, since the close of the ArbCom case, in which Keithbob directly violated the spirit or letter of the ArbCom decision, or standing Wikipedia policies. If the ArbCom decides to reopen this case I will collect and present that evidence. However I do not think that such a review is necessary or would be helpful at this time. The topic is being edited in an orderly and constructive fashion, and there has not been any significant edit warring. &nbsp; <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]]&nbsp; [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]]&nbsp; </b> 08:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

:'''Comment''' The TMM case took a shortcut to arbitration due to the technical evidence. There hasn't even been any informal mediation on content issues. Let's try that and some other dispute resolution methods before starting another ArbCom case, if necessary. FWIW, there don't seem to be any active content disputes. There are pending issues to be resolved but the article texts are fairly stable and the editing has been productive. &nbsp; <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]]&nbsp; [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]]&nbsp; </b> 09:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

:Bwb hasn't provided a single diff to support his claims, including the charge that I've bullied him. Regarding the splitting some text from [[Transcendental Meditation]] to [[Transcendental Meditation technique]], no one has posted any complaints about the outcome, just the process. [[Talk:Transcendental Meditation#RFC: Lead sentence]] Bwb has approved of the split implicitly with his subsequent editing.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maharishi_University_of_Management&diff=prev&oldid=386603477][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fairfield,_Iowa&diff=prev&oldid=386547755][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maharishi_Mahesh_Yogi_Vedic_University&diff=prev&oldid=384180051][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maharishi_Vedic_Approach_to_Health&diff=prev&oldid=384000904][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TM-Sidhi_program&diff=prev&oldid=383815780][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transcendental_Meditation_movement&diff=prev&oldid=383610234] &nbsp; <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]]&nbsp; [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]]&nbsp; </b> 20:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by Fladrif===
It is curious that KBob would seek to commence a new TM ArbCom without giving notice to ''all'' the parties to the prior TM ArbCom.

It is equally curious that KBob would claim that other forms of dispute resolution had been tried when: (i) there has been no activity whatsoever in the two Meditations, one of which was denied, and the other put on hold until the RFCs could run their course; (ii) KBob is not a listed participant in either Mediation; and (iii) KBob took no part in the two RFC's. What is the urgency to bypass normal dispute resolution processes and procedures? If the RFC is finished, why not let the mediating admin know and then let the Mediation run its course?

Normal AE procedures are perfectly adequate to address all of the allegations made in this proposal. If editors are violating the terms of the TM ArbCom decision, as KBob asserts, then he should file a request at AE, not ask to commence a new ArbCom. Why didn't he do that in the first instance"? Why would that be an inadequate remedy if his claims are legitimate? As for the three sanctioned editors, two of them did pursue multiple requests to get their collective 1RR sanctions lifted, although the sanctions have been in place less than two months. Three uninvolved, neutral admins strongly concurred in the sanctions imposed, and the imposing Admin expressed even stronger support for the sanctions after being asked to reconsider. Additional uninvolved Admins have turned down the requests to lift those sanctions. No uninvolved admin (and not even any involved admin) has suggested that lifting the sanctions is appropriate. That those requests were denied does not mean that normal AE appeal procedures are inadequate or improper. A new ArbCom can hardly be justifed merely to address their unhappiness at having been sanctioned and their appeals denied.[[User:Fladrif|Fladrif]] ([[User talk:Fladrif|talk]]) 22:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
:@Jayen - The sanctioned editors were not denied an appeal. They had their appeals, and the appeals were all denied. The imposition of these sanctions and the denial of the appeals were strongly supported by multiple, independent, uninvolved, disinterested administrators. They got everything that the TMArbCom and normal AE procedures promise. How many bites at the appple are they supposed to get? [[User:Fladrif|Fladrif]] ([[User talk:Fladrif|talk]]) 14:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by uninvolved John Carter===
There are references to certain topics getting "periodic review" by the Arbitration Committee above. I'd just like to say that maybe, with the recently increased number of arbitrators, maybe it might not be a bad idea to formalize such review to some degree. So, for instance, perhaps once a year per area if possible, arbitrators not actively assigned to "lead" active cases could review the content of a previous decision where such a statement is made and make statements about anything they see which they believe requires attention. Alternately, if there are respected non-arbitrators who are willing to do so and acceptable to the ArbCom, those individuals might do so and issue a report to the ArbCom.

But I do think that maybe, in at least some cases, putting some teeth in the statements of "periodic review" might make it less likely that follow-up arbitration cases get needed later. Anyway, just an idea, and apologies to NYB for not really acting in accord with his comments below. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 15:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by User:TimidGuy===
Just found out that I can participate here even though I'm banned.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Newyorkbrad#RfArb] Will try to post something tomorrow. [[User:TimidGuy|TimidGuy]] ([[User talk:TimidGuy|talk]]) 17:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The reason I would like to see another arbitration case is because it seems the only option at this point. WP:AE is a sham. The clearly outlined Remedies[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement#Discretionary_sanctions] of the TM arbcom were being ignored.

For example, Future Perfect at Sunrise banned me[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive66#User:TimidGuy_and_User:Littleolive_oil_and_User:Edith_Sirius_Lee] without a warning or counseling, as the Remedies outline. He ignored procedure, and had the support of the community at AE. It felt like a lynching: a rash, peremptory, and emotional action without evidence, making a judgment even before I had posted statement.

Not only was the action at AE problematic, but the sanction effectively bars me from using dispute resolution in the future. Future Perfect at Sunrise described unspecified Talk page comments by me as being "nitpicky" and "patently without merit."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=377960147&oldid=377953514] (Since he gave no diffs or links to threads, I don't know which comments he was referring to.) And he banned me for "persistent stonewalling and unconstructive debating on Talk."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement#Log_of_topic_bans_and_blocks] The problem is that User:Jmh649 has continued to misrepresent sources and flout core policy. I was intending to open an WP:AE case, but now that's out of the question, given this sanction. If I raise these issues again, I'll simply get shot down (and possibly blocked) for "unconstructive debating."

Nor does dispute resolution work. Jmh649's post at RSN[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=375978995&oldid=375975758] contained further false assertions that skewed the discussion. His RfC gave a false choice and misrepresented sources.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transcendental_Meditation/Archive_33#RfC:_How_to_best_summarize_the_scientific_literature_on_TM]

The only chance for a fair hearing and dealing with a faction that misrepresents sources, ignores core policy, and disenfranchises those who object is Arbcom. I can document all of this. And will do so, if given the chance.[[User:TimidGuy|TimidGuy]] ([[User talk:TimidGuy|talk]]) 16:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by Cirt===
I agree with the statement in the "Decline" comment by Arbitrator [[User:Shell Kinney|Shell Kinney]], below, who noted, ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=387094277&oldid=387054478 "disliking the outcomes at WP:AE and appeals doesn't warrant a full case to review."]'' Very well-said. -- '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 07:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by Jayen466===
A new case may be inappropriate, but Olive makes a salient point. The arbitration committee stated that arbitration enforcement sanctions may be appealed to the arbitration committee. It is pointless making such a statement if there is not then in practice any way for a sanctioned editor to appeal. To be as good as their word, I believe it is important that arbitrators should hear an appeal, look into the alleged irregularities of the arbitration enforcement process, and issue a finding either confirming that arbitration enforcement proceeded satisfactorily, or explaining what went wrong and taking suitable actions to prevent a recurrence. It is important to a harmonious editing environment that arbitration enforcement follow the provisions laid down by the committee precisely and impartially, and if a right to appeal is promised, that promise must be kept. --'''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|JN]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 23:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If this page isn't the appropriate venue for an appeal, then editors should be advised on what the proper process for lodging an appeal is. Any resulting findings should be publicised to the community. --'''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|JN]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 13:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

;Reply to Fladrif:
:I have no view on whether the complaints raised here are justified or not, but I strongly believe sanctions processes like arbitration enforcement need checks and balances to ensure their fairness and impartiality, especially where minorities are involved. With discretionary sanctions being an ever more frequent outcome of arbitration cases, it would be imprudent to assume that such impartiality is guaranteed, and that the community always gets it right (just think of US civil rights history, and the role of the Supreme Court).

:A well-functioning, easily accessible appeals process may add more bureaucracy, but is essential to grow and maintain a culture of impartial and fair adjudication. --'''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|JN]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 14:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by Edith Sirius Lee===
Per Jayen and Olive, the attention of the arbitration committee on the current situation is required. Per John Carter, this attention needs to be given in some formal way, that is, a new case or some other formal action must be open. Unless the arbitration committee presents an alternative formal approach, which has not been previously considered, the only option left is to open a new case. Per Olive and BwB, the fact that we like or dislike sanctions is irrelevant. The arbitration committee should focus on whether there has been irregularities in the procedure, not on whether we like or dislike anything. In a similar manner, the fact that these irregularities can compromise the right to fair appeals and are not conductive to a sustained harmonious editing environment is important but obvious. The focus should be directly on the alleged irregularities, not on these other issues, especially not on whether or not we dislike sanctions. [[User:Edith Sirius Lee|Edith Sirius Lee]] ([[User talk:Edith Sirius Lee|talk]]) 12:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

After reading again Jayen's comment, I realize that the discretionary sanctions paragraph explicitly states that sanctions may be appealed directly to '''the Arbitration Committee'''. If opening a case is the standard way to raise any issue to the Arbitration Committee (e.g., an appeal), this by itself should be enough to accept this new case. This new case is not an ordinary appeal to unfair sanctions. There has been irregularities in the AE procedure itself and this can only be looked into and corrected by the Arbitration Committee. Also, the proposed remedies recommend periodic reviews and this new case will be a perfect opportunity for such a review, which I believe was the original motivation of Keithbob. [[User:Edith Sirius Lee|Edith Sirius Lee]] ([[User talk:Edith Sirius Lee|talk]]) 14:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by AGK, for the Mediation Committee ===
In order to preserve [[Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy#The privileged nature of mediation|the privileged nature of mediation]], the two requests for mediation cited by the filing party have been blanked, and their histories deleted. We do not have any other comment to make with regards to the mediations or the merits of this arbitration request.

For the Mediation Committee, [[User talk:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]] 14:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

=== Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.''

=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/0/2) ===
* '''Comment''' I'd like to hear all parties thoughts on whether this rises to the level of requiring another arb case so soon after the last one. I'm leaning towards declining, but I'd like to hear thoughts of editors in the area. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 06:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
* '''Decline''' per those below, this does not require a new case. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 23:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
* Awaiting statements, per SirFozzie. Any further statements urging us to take the case should please address why a new case would be more useful than addressing issues through arbitration enforcement of the existing remedies. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 09:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
*'''Decline.''' Nothing hear seems to rise to the level of needing an additional case; disliking the outcomes at [[WP:AE]] and appeals doesn't warrant a full case to review. [[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell]] <sup>[[User_talk:Shell_Kinney|babelfish]]</sup> 09:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
*'''Decline'''; it looks like things are being handled in the community already &mdash; as Shell notes, disliking the result is not justification for a case. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coren|Coren]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 11:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' - Per Shell. [[User:KnightLago|KnightLago]] ([[User talk:KnightLago|talk]]) 10:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' - per Shell, though it might be beneficial if all the parties took a step back from each other and [[WP:DISENGAGE|disengaged]] for a while, just to de-escalate things. There are plenty of other areas that need editors ... (And please don't all bounce back explaining why this is a Bad Idea.) &nbsp;[[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger&nbsp;Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 21:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
*Perhaps over-cautious and probably irrelevant '''recuse''' - the first TM case involved plagiarism issues, from which I've resolved to recuse, and this looks very much like an extension of that case. [[User:Steve Smith|Steve Smith]] ([[User talk:Steve Smith|talk]]) 00:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:23, 1 October 2010

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 none (orig. case) 8 May 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=388059021"